Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29349121›Full record

ArticleSSM - population health2015

Adherence to clinical preventive services guidelines: Population-based online randomized trial.

W Douglas Evans, Paula M Lantz, Katherine Mead, Carmen Alvarez, Jeremy Snider

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SSM - population health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

W Douglas EvansThe George Washington University, Milken Institute School of Public Health, 950 New Hampshire Avenue, Washington, DC 20052, USA.
Paula M LantzUniversity of Michigan, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, USA.
Katherine MeadThe George Washington University, Milken Institute School of Public Health, 950 New Hampshire Avenue, Washington, DC 20052, USA.
Carmen AlvarezThe Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, 525 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Jeremy SniderUniversity of Washington School of Public Health, Box 357660, Seattle, WA 98195-7660, USA.

Funding

Scientific/Technical CoreP2CHD041028 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Sarah A. Burgard · 2017 to 2026
$6.5M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD041028
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) addresses use of clinical preventive services relative to evidence-based guidelines by mandating that most health insurance plans provide coverage without cost-sharing for services that receive an A or B rating. However, knowledge about and positive attitudes towards guidelines are extremely low. This study was a population-based randomized experiment to examine beliefs about and intentions to adhere to screening guidelines for the Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) and Pap tests. The study had two objectives: (1) test reactions to and understanding of guidelines, and (2) experimentally compare receptivity to messages to promote PSA and Pap test recommendations. We first surveyed a population-based sample of (1) US adults age 18 and over, (2) subsample of women aged 65 or younger, (3) subsample of men aged 40 or older. A sample of 2923 completed an initial questionnaire. Next a subset of participants meeting eligibility criteria were recruited from the population-based sample into a message testing experiment: (1) women aged 65 or younger, (2) and men aged 40 or older. Participants meeting these eligibility requirements were randomized to gain, loss, or balanced PSA (men) or Pap test (women) message stimulus conditions and followed for 8 weeks. Data were collected through the GfK Custom Research panel. A total of 2401 were eligible, 2321 completed the baseline, and 1730 completed follow up. Mixed effect regression models revealed that higher receptivity to messages was associated with greater intentions to seek cancer information and to speak to a Doctor about PSA and Pap tests. The loss frame was associated with higher intentions to speak to friends and family about PSA and Pap tests. Finally, perceived importance and personal understanding of guidelines predicted intentions to seek more information about them. This study contributes to evidence on how best to inform and engage consumers regarding preventive services.

Indexed as

Cervical cancer screeningClinical guidelinesFramingMessage testingPreventive Services TaskforceProstate cancer screening

Identifiers

PMID29349121
PMCPMC5757777

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.